Tom and Libby Luke tomluke@westnet.com.au from Bendigo Australia sent us the following story about the Cornishman Sir John Quick born at Trevessa Farm, Towednack Cornwall.

The Cornish Contribution to the Federation of Australia in 1901 and the enormous work of Sir John Quick of Bendigo.
Sir John Quick was a key figure in getting Australian Federation underway, a self made man and a very active freemason.
He was born at Towednack near St Ives, Cornwall on April 22 1852 and was only 2 when his family arrived on the Bendigo goldfields. His father died soon after and Quick’s early life was hard. Leaving school at 10 he worked in foundries, mines and in a printing room for several years. He taught himself shorthand and became a junior reporter with the Bendigo Advertiser before heading to Melbourne in 1872. He put himself through university with the help of scholarships and more newspaper work, particularly as the parliamentary reporter for the Melbourne Age. He graduated as a lawyer in 1877 and was called to the bar in 1878.
Returning to Bendigo, he entered state parliament in 1880 and became a strong advocate for Federation. He married Catherine Harris in 1883 and they settled in Quarry Hill. Despite not being native-born, he was allowed to join the Australia Natives Association and used his presidency of the Bendigo branch as a platform for his efforts towards a single Australian nation.

His key moment came in 1893 at the Corowa Federal Conference when, to break the deadlocked arguments, he put the resolution that each state would pass its own legislation towards the Constitution, then a national referendum would be put to adopt it. This ensured that the decision to federate would be equal between all states, and not seen as being imposed by the stronger ones.

Quick travelled widely over the next few years to promote Federation and was the second elected of the ten Victorian delegates to the 1897-98 Constitutional Convention. His evangelism for the cause is clear in his ringing words:

“The question is whether there is to be a continuation and intensification of our separate existence as separate colonies, under which there will be antagonism, isolation, parochialism, and belligerency, with all the frightful family of evils flowing therefrom; or whether there is to be an integration and union into one people with one destiny. There can be no reasonable doubt about the magnitude of the issue, and the supreme importance and fate-begetting character of the alternative.

One will lead to national decay and ruin! the other, as sure as the dawning sun dispels the mists and gloom of night, will lead on to national life and national immortality. Well then may we say in warning tones, at the critical juncture and awe-inspiring moment of our history, ‘Unite, and live’; ‘Divide, and perish’. The shadow on the dial swiftly moves towards the fateful hour. Australians! quit yourselves as men, and prove yourselves worthy of your heritage!”.
(Advance Australia, ANA, 1897)

With the success of the referendum, he was elected unopposed federal member for Bendigo in the first Australian Parliament in 1901, as well as being knighted at the opening ceremony for his contribution to the new country. He held the seat until 1913, was appointed Post Master General in 1909, but any hopes for higher office were frustrated by differences with Prime Minister Alfred Deakin.

He returned to the law in 1913 and wrote several key legal and historical texts (Quick and Garran’s The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth is still a widely quoted standard text on the topic) before being appointed Deputy Chairman of the Arbitration Commission from 1922 to 1930. He was proud to note that all the disputes brought before him (bar one) were resolved without recourse to strike action.

The young John Quick was initiated into Masonic Lodge Judah while studying in Melbourne, with the encouragement of his future father-in-law Edward Harris, a former mayor of Eaglehawk and Master of Eaglehawk Lodge. On his return to Bendigo, Quick joined Zenith Lodge. He was their WM in the busy pre-Federation year of 1899 and was appointed Deputy Grand Master for the United Grand Lodge of Victoria in 1914.

But, whether from his need to earn a living in Bendigo (no parliamentary pensions then!), or feuds from his political career, or even his friendship with “Germans” such as WC Vahland in the hysteria of World War 1, he did not become Grand Master.

He died in 1932, in retirement in Camberwell, Melbourne, proud of the country he helped create.

Sir John Quick “Humble Beginnings”
Of all the thousands of people who came to Victoria in the 19th Century seeking to make their fortunes by far the greatest ethnic group were Cornishmen.
Life in Cornwall at that time was very hard and they had a magnificent knowledge of hard rock mining coming from their own tin, copper and arsenic mines.
They were also experts in steam winding machinery remembering that Richard Trevithick of Camborne Cornwall had built the first high pressure boiler and the world’s first mobile steam engine and locomotive. Later their expertise was also evident in deep quartz mining again from their previous work in their homeland.
John Quick the son of John and Mary Quick was born on the 22nd April 1852 at Trevessa Farm Towednack in Cornwall. This was in the West Penwith mining area of Cornwall.
When he was two years old in 1854 his parents along with John emigrated to the Goldfields of Victoria and to Bendigo which at that time was known as Sandhurst after the British Army Barracks in Berkshire.
This part of his life will be another story further down this series of articles on the great man.
Trevessa Farm at Towednack was in the Quick family for many generations and is situated near the coast just South of St.Ives
Towednack Church is said to have the shortest steeple in all of Cornwall as it was struck several times by lightning during its construction. Local legend says this was the work of the Lord as a response to the sins of the then parishioners.
We first visited Trevessa farm in 2001 and met with the then owners Adrian and Margaret Biggs. Upon identifying ourselves as Australians they told us of the frustrations they had in dealing with Australia House in London to provide a plaque as so many Australians had visited during their tenure at the farm.
At the time I (Tom) was the President of the Cornish Association of Victoria, Australia and we informed them we were sure my committee would back us in providing such a plaque. This was duly arranged and cast here in Australia and forwarded to Cornwall.
Prof. Richard Snedden wrote a life story of Sir John and at the unveiling of the Plaque in 2002 to celebrate the 150th Anniversary of the birth of Sir John it was read to the assembled crowd by John Bolitho (Jowan Cleth) Grand Bard of Cornwall (Gorsedh Kernow)
A large audience assembled for the unveiling including the Mayor of St.Ives, local dignitaries and Councillor’s, former Grand Bards and local citizens.
The Banners of The Cornish Associations of Victoria and South Australia were carried by Dr. Nigel Hicks and the late Vivian Pryor both noted Cornishmen.
All in attendance were offered Australian wine supplied by Jonathon Ball a founding member of the Eden Project in Cornwall. Jonathon and his wife Victoria visited Bendigo in 2002.
It was further explained that when as a member of an Australian Government Committee visiting Great Britain in 1911 Sir John had made a pilgrimage back to the place of his birth at Trevessa.
Future Australian visitors with a Cornish heritage and there are countless thousands will now be able to visit this place so much tied to our Federation and read with pride of Sir John Quick.
In 2004 just two years later Professor Michael L’Estrange A.O. as Australian High Commissioner in London made a trip to the South West of the U.K. and in particular Cornwall.
Councillor Graeme Hicks a Cornwall Councillor along with his brother Dr. Nigel Hicks (Libby’s cousins) arranged a visit to Trevessa Farm. It was noted that he expressed that visiting Trevessa was a highlight of his visit to Cornwall.
Upon his leaving a broad Cornish voice was heard to say “What a pity Sir John went to Bendigo, if he had stayed here Cornwall might have a constitution also.

At last a complete professional, independent and objective reference book on Cornish legal history.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LAWS OF THE DUCHY OF CORNWALL,
THE ISLES OF SCILLY, AND DEVON
By John Kirkhope

The author of An introduction to the laws of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly, and Devon is a lawyer, not a historian, although he has a passion for history. As a lawyer he takes a special interest in those laws which are particular to Cornwall and, to a lesser extent, to the Isles of Scilly and to Devon and are still capable of application in the twenty-first century. It is noteworthy that certain ancient laws and customs, in particular Stannary Law, although not as relevant today as once they were, are still part of the law of England and Wales. They continue to give rights which are capable of being exercised.
This is not meant to be a legal textbook; that would be very dull. It is instead intended to initiate the reader to a fascinating topic. In particular there has been a growth in the number of people interested in studying the history and culture of Cornwall. This work is intended to cast additional light on an aspect of the legal history of Cornwasll. It is hoped that it will encourage the reader to research still further; to that extent a lengthy list of additional reading is also provided.
John Kirkhope has been awarded degrees and post-graduate qualifications from the Open University, Nottingham Trent University, Bristol University, and Cambridge. He was recently awarded a Doctorate in Philosophy from Plymouth University; his thesis was an examination of the Duchy of Cornwall and is entitled The Duchy of Cornwall – A Feudal Remnant. Professionally John is qualified as a solicitor and a Notary Public.

The decision of the UK Government of 24th April 2014 to include the Cornish within the terms of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities comes fifteen years after its official ratification in1999. The determined 83,499 Cornish people who made the effort to “write in” their “other” national identity on the 2011 Census form should be given credit for this decision.

It would appear that the 125% increase in the official Census figures for the “Cornish” population for 2011, compared with 2001, finally penetrated the official mind that the Cornish were not going to give up their birthright any time soon. However, the policy of delay in ignoring the positive evidence submitted from many quarters, has proved advantageous for the majority while subjecting the claims of the Cornish minority to cheap ridicule and instant rejection. It is, therefore, very important to secure the immediate implementation of the spirit and the letter of the Convention, in particular, Articles 4 and 5 without further delay. We need to establish a firm foundation for the survival of, and respect for, all the aspects of life which comprise the Cornish identity with regard to the individual, the national group and future generations.

Section II Article 4

The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited.

The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities.

The measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be considered to be an act of discrimination.

Article 5

The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage.

Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general integration policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such assimilation

In order to establish a multi-racial “right to equality before the law” and “protection from assimilation”, all UK government sponsored and protected organisations currently operating in Cornwall to promote the majority culture, such as, “English Heritage”; “Duchy of Cornwall”; “English Nature”; “The National Trust” and “English Tourist Board”, should be required to make immediate preparations to cease operations in Cornwall and transfer all assets held in Cornwall into the administrative protection and control of the duly elected Cornish Council at Truro.

I could not support “OUT” while there is no constitutional guarantee of EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW.

This cornerstone of democracy does not exist in English law along with its failure to provide the individual with a one-stop written constitution.

Equality before the law is available under EU law at Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000 -“Everyone is equal before the law”.-

But, this has been rejected by possibly “The (behind closed doors) Privy Council”. We do not know. It is assumed that we have no need to know.

NO equality before the law, not even in the mistakenly mis-titled Equality Act 2010. The door is left open for the assumed God given feudal right of “Freedom to Act “for the chosen elite against any defenceless and unsupportive individual,

His phone calls, e-mails and personal info from any other surveillance scheme are government property.

The individual in the UK is subject to blackmail for uttering the officially unspeakable such as expressing a desire to abolish the central constitutional provision of Duchy of Cornwall which, to avoid prying questions concerning its origins and policies, is now claimed as a private estate by the royal landlord who has been given laws and exemptions from laws to place him above the law.

The Prince of Wales has bought and renovated properties in rural Romania to help protect the unique way of life that has existed for hundreds of years through the promotion of sustainable tourism.

His Royal Highness has a long-standing interest in Romania and has visited the country regularly since his first visit in 1998.

The Prince has said that he was particularly moved by the plight of the remarkable fortified Saxon villages in Transylvania which were built centuries ago by German settlers, who were encouraged to go there to help withstand Tartar and Turkish invasions.

Sadly, due to mass migration, many of these villages have ageing populations and are in decline.

On his first visit to Transylvania, The Prince was immediately struck by the precious legacy of this area and said he was “totally overwhelmed by its unique beauty and its extraordinarily rich heritage.”

The Prince of Wales is well-known for his commitment to preserving traditional rural communities and their way of life, both in the UK and overseas.

In 2006 The Prince of Wales decided to buy and restore an 18th Century Saxon house in the Transylvanian village Viscri, the latter a designated UNESCO World Heritage Site.

In 2010, The Prince purchased a property in the village of Zalánpatak which was founded four centuries ago by the Kálnoky Family as a glass manufacturing area in the heart of the forest.

The manufacturing ended in the early 1900s but around 150 people live there today.

The Prince of Wales owns the property that had originally been built for the former judge who was overseeing the manufacture of glass and the village as a whole.

The property comprises several buildings, and has a patch of forest and extensive flower meadows with mineral springs and small brooks belonging to it.

The property in Zalanpatak is characterized by its rich biodiversity with native plants, mushrooms, insects and birds. Large mammals including bears are often seen and wolves can be heard howling during the winter nights.

Guests are looked after by local staff and the resident ecologist. Activities depend on the season and range from bear-tracking over horse and cart trips, wild flower botany, mushroom picking, hiking or simply relaxing.

His Royal Highness said: “Ever since I first visited Romania in 1998, I have been doing my utmost to ensure a sustainable future for the Saxon villages of Transylvania and their people. Tourism clearly has a vital role to play in this.”

All of the buildings have been sensitively restored, and have a number of Transylvanian antiques. They remain very much in keeping with the surrounding architecture, but with modern facilities where possible for the comfort of tourists who wish to explore the unique culture of this forgotten part of Europe.

Through the renovation of these buildings His Royal Highness aims to help provide a sustainable future for the people of rural Transylvania whilst enabling residents to maintain their traditional way of life.

**************************end of article****************************

Note:-The Prince of Wales is the Heir to the Throne and the

Duke of Cornwall. Cornwall is Celtic not Saxon.

There are statutory provisions regarding the law on questions that may arise regarding the above Duchy of Cornwall article.

Summary of the law:-

It would appear that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as amended by the Constitutional Act of 2010 legislates to provide that questions submitted by members of the public to public authorities can no longer be answered on the grounds of being in the pubic interest if the questions concern matters relevant to the Heir to the Throne, The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall, the future King of the United Kingdom who is now consequently an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This includes exemption from revealing information in respect of:-planning law; income from instate estates in Cornwall; bona vacantia re assets of bankrupt companies in Cornwall; income from the rivers and foreshore of Cornwall; claims to mining rights under private land in Cornwall; royalties from mining enterprise in Cornwall, all of which are protected as privileges regardless of the democratic rights of the indigenous Cornish people.

Details of the law:-

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND GOVERNANCE ACT 2010

SCHEDULE 7 Section 46

AMENDMENTS OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

1

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is amended as follows.

2 In section 2(3) (exemptions not subject to public interest test) after paragraph (e)insert—

“(ea) in section 37, paragraphs (a) to (ab) of subsection (1), and subsection (2) so far as relating to those paragraphs,”.

3 In section 37(1) (communications with Her Majesty, etc.), for paragraph (a)substitute—“(a)communications with the Sovereign,

(aa) communications with the heir to, or the person who is for the time being second in line of succession to, the Throne,

(ab)communications with a person who has subsequently acceded to the Throne or become heir to, or second in line to, the Throne,

37 Communications with Her Majesty, etc. and honours.E+W+S+N.I.

(aa) communications with the heir to, or the person who is for the time being second in line of succession to, the Throne,

(ab)communications with a person who has subsequently acceded to the Throne or become heir to, or second in line to, the Throne,

(ac)communications with other members of the Royal Family (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ab) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), and

(ad)communications with the Royal Household (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ac) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), or]

(b)the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity.

(2)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1).

Lord Berkeley is presenting a Bill to Parliament which includes restructuring the Duchy of Cornwall as a trust for the benefit of the people of Cornwall.

This proposal is made against the challenging background of the politicisation of the English Language.

At the age of thirteen in 1949, I attended a regular RK (Religious Knowledge) Lesson at the Humphry Davy Grammar School, Penzance. The teacher read out a passage from the Bible which included:- “And Jesus said, I say unto you it is easier for a camel to go through the needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”. (Matthew 19/24). I put up my hand. Yes? and I asked, “Does this mean that the King will not go to heaven because he’s rich”. The Teacher responded: “How impudent! come here! follow me!” I was marched up the Headmaster’s Office and caned on both hands. Are royal questions still banned?

It is noted that no Act of Parliament has established a legal right of exemption from the strictures of the Bible for the Royal Family. Consequently, the Monarchy and Royal Family should be constitutionally required to affirm that they are, at the very least, Defenders of all the Nations of the United Kingdom. Any form of punishment for asking questions in this area is, therefore, nothing but the abuse of power which should be constitutionally established as illegal.

In 1997, I asked the newly elected MP, Andrew George, if he could ask questions in Parliament about the Duchy of Cornwall. He said he would find out. He sent me a copy of a letter from the House of Commons Library which stated: “there are restrictions on any question which casts reflections upon the Sovereign or the Royal Family”. Members of Parliament must swear true allegiance to H.M. The Queen with hand on the Bible. The intention of this dedication must be to establish equal allegiance for the Bible and the Monarch as Defender of the Faith.

However, it would appear that an official declaration of “cast reflections” or ‘bring discredit upon’ is considered justification for the punishment of ‘No Questions and No Answers’ to silence minorities. This is not of general application in keeping with the principle of equality before the law. The teaching and political institutions have apparently found ways to exercise power by manipulating the English language and administering punishment regardless of the principles of democracy.

As well as “people power”, ‘Democracy’, is found to include such definitions as: “a form of society ignoring hereditary class distinction and tolerating minority views”, as well as: “a social condition of classlessness and equality” and requiring, “a full discussion of common problems”.

A further refinement of the use of politicised English is to be found in the

“Crown Application” publication of the ‘Office of the Parliamentary Counsel’ dated 1st August 2008, recently released to the public through the persistence of Notary Public, Dr. John Kirkhope. Paragraph 101 states:

“ There is no question of personal immunity from legislation for any member of the Royal Family other than the Sovereign. This includes the Prince of Wales”.

You might be forgiven, though mistaken, for nurturing the belief that the phrase: “This includes the Prince of Wales” means: no personal immunity for the Prince of Wales. The Duke of Cornwall is also the Prince of Wales.

Personal immunity is confirmed for His/Her Majesty in His/Her private capacity at section 40 (1) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. However, section 38 (3) states: “Any reference in this Act to His Majesty in His private capacity shall be construed as a reference to His Majesty in right of His Duchy of Lancaster and to the Duke of Cornwall”. The Duke of Cornwall, therefore, has immunity on a par with the Monarch.

A reference is made to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in other Acts of Parliament under: ‘Crown Application’ e.g., The Equality Act 2010 section 205 with note No. 649: “This section does not affect Her Majesty in her private capacity”. This automatically “does not affect” the Duke of Cornwall.

So, officially the law provides personal immunity for the Duke of Cornwall by inclusion under His or Her Majesty in His or Her private capacity. The Duke of Cornwall is, therefore, not included with other members of the Royal Family as apparently indicated by the ‘Office of Parliamentary Counsel’ document: “Crown Application” para.101, above.

This official information has been arranged in a manner that encourages a general belief, and thus discourages questions, rather than care to inform the public of the actual facts. Furthermore, to prevent the possibility of an inquiry claiming a public interest, the Duke of Cornwall, Heir to the Throne, is now exempt from any questions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as amended by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Schedule 7.

Contrary to the historical evidence, the Duchy of Cornwall is claimed by the Treasury and the Duke to be a private estate. A clear case of ‘because we say so’. Apparently, this arbitrary decision is intended to avoid questions concerning the reason why the racist policies of the Duchy Charters of 1337 are being retained and defended at every turn.

In the Cornwall Foreshore dispute of 1858 between the Monarchy and the Duchy, the Duchy claimed to be the Government of Cornwall and was awarded the foreshore of Cornwall as a “territorial possession”. This so-called private estate, exempt from questions, is, under sections 1012/3 of the Companies Act 2006, the beneficiary of “Property of Dissolved Company” and “Property vesting as Bona Vacantia”. A unique unprecedented arrangement applicable to the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall only.

The profits from Cornwall especially: minerals, foreshore, rivers, intestate estates treasure trove and gold and silver in Cornwall were augmented by an extraordinary official act of compensation for loss of certain Duchy mineral taxes amounting to £16,216.00 per annum from 1838-1983. The Duchy has invested much of the profits from Cornwall outside Cornwall. (£16,216.00 in 1838 would, at today’s values, be worth approximately £1 million).

The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall has been accompanied for centuries with action to ensure that the English national majority of the UK are taught to believe that it is normal for them to be exempt from contributing towards the upkeep of an Heir to the Throne. This could mean the loss of democratic control of the Monarchy.

The many examples of duality of meaning has created a deep seated element of distrust and scepticism among the indigenous British Cornish national minority.

A break with the past, sympathetic with the message of the Official King James Version of the Bible, would clearly establish trust, for example: St. Luke, Chapter 18 verse 22: “Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor”.

Since the Duchy of Cornwall is not permitted to sell any of the Duchy’s assets,

it would be appropriate to support Lord Berkeley who is sponsoring the “Rights of the Sovereign and Duchy of Cornwall Bill 2012-2013” as an amendment to the “Sovereign Grant Act 2011”. This courageous Lord proposes that:-

“The assets and property of the Duchy of Cornwall shall be transferred to and shall vest in a public trust for the benefit of the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly”.

An “Explanatory Memorandum” for the proposed Trust section reads:-

(3) “This requires the assets of the Duchy of Cornwall to be transferred to a public trust for the benefit of the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. It seeks to regularise the status of the Duchy. At present, there is public uncertainty as to whether it is a public or private body or ‘above the law’. It would also mean that the Trust would pay the appropriate taxes in a transparent manner, as well as being subject to the Freedom of Information Act, required to comply with environmental and adopt housing and leasehold policies etc., and other legislation as a public body with no Crown immunity. It would not be allowed to obtain free legal advice from the Treasury Solicitor”.

The Cornish are being subjected to identity theft and the current Bill, if passed into law, would go a long way towards rectifying the present situation with the abolition of the feudal charters and conventions which still promote the racial discrimination of the past. It is time for English democracy to make a constitutional guarantee of equality before the law.

Held in trust, the proceeds of the Duchy of Cornwall would help to promote the Cornish language and culture.

I am sure that all thinking Cornish people will wholeheartedly support Lord Berkeley and Notary Public, Dr. John Kirkhope in their attempts to add racial objectivity to the English legal system.

The Daily Telegraph of today (11th March 2013) carries an article by James Dyson entitled “We can’t allow the copycats to clean up”. With a sub-title, “If inventors are to flourish, their work must be safeguarded against imitators”. The article reveals that Mr Dyson runs the James Dyson Foundation which donated £5million to the Royal College of Art.

The article declares “Patents are only as good as the system that enforces them” and discusses a government: “Patent box initiative” and continues: “Protecting an idea is as important as having it in the first place”. Mr Dyson asserts: “Copying stagnates competition, it stifles invention and tricks the consumer into buying the wrong product”. Finally, the Chinese are accused of copying.

For over two hundred years the Cornish inventor of the steam locomotive, Richard Trevithick has been ignored by the English establishment. That is, the Teachers’ Trade Unions, the Department of Education and English politicians. They all ignored the Richard Trevithick entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It was a clear case of declaring Stephenson our hero by the landowners of those “dark satanic mills” as a symbol to appeal to our workers in our cities of Northern England. English nationalism was elated. The facts would be a kill-joy.

Has Mr Dyson, as an inventor, ever looked at the “Reader’s Digest – Man the Inventor” and discovered the role of Richard Trevithick as the inventor of the self propelled vehicle? Also, “Computer Power and Human Reason” by Professor of Computer Science, Joseph Weizenbaum, who notes in respect of Trevithick: “Invention involves the imaginative projection of symbols of one existing, and generally well-developed, frame of reference to another”?

How can the English intelligentsia condemn the Chinese or anybody else as copycats when they so blatantly ignore the facts in order to induce a nationalist ego trip and ignore advice to rectify their error? Were this but the only incidence.

In 1337 the English establishment invented the Dictatorial Charter to create the Duchy of Cornwall in order to provide unchallenged an income from Cornwall (then Cornish speaking) for the Heir to the Throne to avoid collecting a tax from the English national majority. This has also provided centuries of wealth accumulation for the national majority without a hint of any confession of the facts. As Mr Dyson suggests in his article; “We have all been tricked into buying the wrong product”.

Mr Dyson, with no written constitution to protect indigenous minority rights and no guarantee of equality before the law in English law, should you not consider using your influence to modernise Britain before following the diversionary habit of attacking foreign countries as the source of all our problems including those hidden under the carpet?

In order to obtain details on how the legislative process works in the democratic system of the United Kingdom, the Notary Public, John Kirkhope has acquired from the Cabinet Office a copy of the process and rules according to which HM The Queen and HM Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cornwall, give their consent to Acts of Parliament at the early stage of draft proposals. At first, information was refused by the Cabinet Office but after protracted delays and following an appeal to the Information Commissioner, disclosure of an edited version in the public interest was agreed.

Well done Mr Notary Public. Unfortunately, not all attempts to obtain official information on the relationship of the Duchy of Cornwall to Cornwall and its people are successful. For example, after four years of requests, tribunals and appeals, information on the tax liability of the Duke of Cornwall for the period 1960 to 1962, Mr Kirkhope has been refused the information in the form of a 31 page document.

What is the Government trying to hide? The Crown Estate and the Duchy of Lancaster accept their responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, so, why not the Duchy of Cornwall? The Duke of Cornwall gets special treatment or Crown immunity by other means. The Freedom of Information Act has been amended by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Schedule 7, by which “exemptions not subject to the public interest test” now include “Communications with the heir to the throne”. That is, the Duke of Cornwall and the next in line to the throne. This Act is totally at variance with The Princes Case 1606, otherwise studiously followed by Attorney-Generals, which affirms that “Acts (or decisions) concerning the Prince of Wales (The Duke of Cornwall) are public Acts to be judicially noticed”.

A tradition of transparency was confirmed by Rowe v. Brenton, Trial at Bar 1828-30. “The public has in interest in everything that is done in the Duchy”. (Concanen Edition, 8B & C737). Currently, if logic applied, then, the logical conclusion would be that whatever the Duke of Cornwall does in respect of Cornwall, the exceptions or immunities provided mean that, it is officially not in the public interest.

In what appears to be the last release of documents, in a version considered suitable for public viewing, in relation to the Duke and Duchy of Cornwall, has been given the title: “Queen’s or Prince’s Consent” comprising 30 pages of 145 paragraphs and an appendix of 40 paragraphs with some deletions published by the “Office of the Parliamentary Counsel” on “10 November 2010”. Paragraph 4 of the main text reads:-

“Queen’s consent is likely to be needed for – provisions affecting the prerogative; and provisions affecting the hereditary revenues, property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall”. This process is initiated when, except in cases requiring consent in respect of the prerogative only, there is considered to be “a potential impact on operations or privileges”, as given at para.121, in respect of the Crown Estate or the Duchies. (Note:- Acts concerning the Duchy of Cornwall require the Queen’s consent when there is no Duke and the estate reverts to the Crown to be administered separately until the next Duke is born. The Duchy is never absorbed into the Crown). The “privileges” apparently refer to unspecified privileges above and beyond those available to the ordinary individual citizen.

The “Consent” document makes no reference to the Cornwall foreshore dispute between the Monarch and the Duke leading to the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858. The evidence presented in that case by the parties reveals (a) and (b) Duchy evidence and (c) Crown evidence. (a)“The Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine”. (b) “The three Duchy Charters are sufficient in themselves to vest in the Dukes of Cornwall, not only the government of Cornwall, but the entire territorial dominion in and over the county which had previously been vested in the Crown”.

(c) “That the Crown by virtue of its dominion and authority over the soil…..it is conceived that such rights in the Crown are irreconcilable with the alleged independence or quasi independence of the county from the sovereignty of England”.

In this 1858 royal dispute the Duchy of Cornwall’s argument was accepted and it was awarded the minerals of the foreshore and rivers of Cornwall. Normally, such assets would be taken as Crown property. Not so for Cornwall. The Crown Estate (“held by her majesty in her political capacity”, Halsbury’s Vol.12(1) para.278) has confirmed: “The Crown Estate has no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall”. (Letter dated 7th January 2005). At least, in this respect, Cornwall is officially and inexplicably detached from the rest of the UK.

Under “Prince’s consent” para.34; “The Duchy of Cornwall was created in 1337 by Edward III for his son Prince Edward (the Black Prince). A charter ensured that each future Duke of Cornwall would be the eldest surviving son of the monarch and heir to the throne”. Paragraph 59 recognises the Duchy of Cornwall as a “Dukedom”, i.e. an area ruled by a Duke.

The “Consent” document does not reveal that the creation of the Dukedom was achieved by three charters. The first was deemed, by The Prince’s Case of 1606, (8 Co.Rep) to be “equivalent to an Act of Parliament since, even though it created a mode of descent unknown to the common law which it is doubtful whether the Sovereign’s grant can do without parliamentary authority”. (Halsbury’s Laws, 4th Ed, Vol.8, Constitutional Law, para.1560). These charters were originally written in latin. There is no record that members of the English Parliament in 1337 spoke or understood latin. Official translations into English were made in 1830 by James Manning for the Trial at Bar, Rowe v. Brenton case. (convened to award the Duchy the copper deposits of Cornwall). The case was under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice. In 1337, the Cornish spoke Cornish. In terms of minerals and metals, the Charters refer only to: “Our stannaries”, i.e., tin and “coinage” or, the Dukes tax levied on tin production at twice the hundred rate for Cornwall compared to that collected in Devon. Figures from “The Stannaries” by G.R.Lewis, Harvard University, USA, 1908). The tax was discontinued in 1838 and replaced by an annuity of £16,216.00 till 1983. (‘The Duchy of Cornwall’, by Crispin Gill, publishers, David & Charles, 1987, pages 51 and 196).

All three, as yet unrepealed Duchy Charters, contain the phrase: “We have given and granted Our son…………….according to the nobility of his race”. This insertion, otherwise unrelated to the text, reflects the prerogative at work apparently as authority to discriminate against the Cornish.

The first Charter of 17th March 1337 claimed the pre-England Cornish tin mining organisation as “Our stannaries ” and gave the assurance: “lest it may in anywise hereafter be doubted what or how much the same Duke or others Duke of the same place ought to have in particular we have commanded to be inserted in this our Charter”. One would suppose – job done.

On the following day, the 18th March 1337, a second Charter decreed an off the official record prerogative grant extending the Duke’s considerable powers to maximise his income in Cornwall.

Then there was the third charter of 3rd January 1338 which authorised a virtual Duchy Dictatorship in Cornwall by the Monarchy and Parliament granting “the King’s Writ, summons of exchequer and official acts, notwithstanding Our prerogative”.

Fourteenth century imperialism, by charter, prerogative or otherwise, should be recognised as undemocratic in twenty-first century Britain and promptly abolished.

Also excluded from the “Consent” document is the statement to Parliament of 27th March 1996 by the Prime Minister which sets out the constitutional position:

“No formal title to the lands of the Duchy of Lancaster is vested in the Sovereign and of the Duchy of Cornwall in the Prince of Wales. However, neither the Sovereign nor the Prince of Wales (the Duke of Cornwall) is able to dispose of the estate’s capital; they are entitled only to the annual income”. (Hansard Col.22811).

In other words, certain royal private assets can not be disposed of as is the case with a normal private estate. However, the “Consent” document asserts: “The private estates differ from the Crown Estate in that they can be freely disposed of and are not subject to the Civil List Acts. (Consent para. 28).

The right to “signify consent” for certain proposed Acts of Parliament in respect of “personal interests” and “the prerogative” which is “now exercised by Crown servants”, (Consent, para.8 ), appears to signify an intention to retain and extend the realm of prerogative rights for the Government, the Monarch personally and for the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cornwall who is officially part of Her Majesty in Her private capacity. Accordingly, the law states: “Any reference in this Act to His Majesty in His private capacity shall be construed as including a reference to His Majesty in right of his Duchy of Lancaster and to the Duke of Cornwall” (Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 38 (3c).

The decisive part of the Crown Proceedings Act is section 40 (1) which clearly states: “Nothing in this Act shall apply to proceedings by or against, or authorise proceedings in tort to be brought against His/Her Majesty in His/Her private capacity”. (Includes the Duke of Cornwall). This provision is clearly a constitutional benefit of Crown immunity proportions for the Duke of Cornwall which is not applicable to everyone else. The “Crown Application” publication also released to Mr. Kirkhope by the Cabinet Office reveals a conflict of interest at para.101: “There is no question of personal immunity from legislation for any member of the Royal Family other than the Sovereign. This includes the Prince of Wales”. i.e. The Duke of Cornwall.

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 38 (3c) is often quoted to justify an exemption from an Act of Parliament for the Heir to the Throne as Duke of Cornwall, as for example, the Equality Act 2010 section 205, Crown Application, para.(6)). The 1947 Act does not specifically include: “Duchy”, it only specifies “Duke”, although, according to Lord McNally of the Ministry of Justice: “The constitutional position is that the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate that funds the public, charitable and private activities of the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry”. (House of Lords, 11th May 2011 Column WA214).

This appears to indicate the existence of a “constitutional private estate”.

On the other hand, Sir Walter Ross KCVO, the Secretary to the Duchy of Cornwall, affirms: “The Dukedom is a hereditary title and the Duke has no constitutional function”. (At para.55, First-Tier Tribunal on royal taxation liability, 15th January 2013). In response to this FOI request by Mr Kirkhope it was revealed that, a team of legal experts claimed that the Duke’s tax affairs were private just like everyone else.

This appears to expose an “unconstitutional Dukedom”.

It has become patently obvious that there are many diverse interpretations and applications of “private” and “constitutional” in use for the maintenance of royal privileges.

The “Queen’s and Prince’s Consent” document declares at para.10; “It is not possible to give a comprehensive catalogue of prerogative powers”. Consequently, when dealing with the constitutional position of the heir to the throne as Duke of Cornwall, people in power appear to believe, as did Edward the Third in 1337, that “the nobility of his race” is a royal constitutional command of over-riding importance to be adopted in arriving at any government or Duchy of Cornwall decision relative to Cornwall.

The “Consent” document does not make reference to the series of Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts enacted over the centuries dedicated to promoting the interests of the Dukes of Cornwall.

Confirmation of the royal prerogative of 1337 is enacted in the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, section 8 which reads: ”The Treasury shall have regard to the interests of both present and future Dukes of Cornwall or the possessors of the Duchy”. Neither the Act nor the prerogative, it appears, is intended to benefit the Cornish people.

Consequently, it is contended that the secret behind the Parliamentary and Royal “Consent” document is to cover up the truth behind almost seven centuries of uninterrupted secret exploitation of Cornwall with the profits invested elsewhere in the United Kingdom without the consent of the Cornish people. This policy of “elsewhere” for the distribution of income from Cornwall is currently also specifically stated as policy in the Duke of Cornwall’s Benevolent Fund, registered Charity number 269183. For the Duchy of Lancaster its Charity is committed to distributing benefits within the area from which the income is collected.

The Duke’s interest in Charities (Appendix 7 of the “Consent” document) does not mention the sources from Cornwall only. These include: base and royal minerals, Treasure Trove, intestate estates, the foreshore and rivers, the administration of bankruptcies under the Supreme Court Act 1980 section 120. In these times of financial hardship in both 2010 and 2011 £50,000.00 was transferred to the Duke’s Benevolent Fund from the Bona Vacantia account. (Duchy of Cornwall Annual Accounts 2011).

The release of “Consent” information regarding the protection of the “prerogative” and “personal interests” of the Duke of Cornwall appears to indicate acceptance of responsibility by both the Monarch and Parliament for the creation and retention of the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy Charters and the accompanying official protective laws and secretive quasi-legal documents represent a monument to feudalism.

The people of Britain need a long overdue modern British Constitution in a single document to include the United Nations principle of equality before the law. (UN Universal Declaration, Article 7). Across the western world a hands-on written Constitution is designed to assist the individual in identifying those who exercise power in order to prevent the abuse of power.

At the present time the British government’s constitutional policy can be summarised as: Questions are out of the Question. The conclusion is; democracy is therefore not working but the unlimited prerogative is working.

Many thanks Mr Kirkhope, a very busy Notary Public, for putting your head on the block in defence of democracy. The system is making it much more difficult to discover hidden agendas lying under that official carpet. It is to be hoped that Freedom of Expression in the Human Rights Act 1998 will not continue to be denied or rewritten to prevent the search for the truth.

We, senior leaders of the world’s religions, have convened in a World Religious Leaders Summit for Peace in Sapporo, Japan, just prior to the Group of Eight (G8) Hokkaido Toyako Summit. We are unitedin our commitment to peace, which includes our concern for the inviolable dignity of all people, thedire suffering of so many and the well-being of our shared Earth.

We carry forward important work begun in multi-religious meetings held just prior to the G8 summits in Moscow (2006) and Cologne (2007). We have been convened by Religions for Peace—Japan in partnership with the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

We are united in our call to the G8 to take bold action to address the threats that confront humanity, including the destruction of the environment and climate change, extreme global poverty and deteriorating food security, nuclear arms, terrorism and violent conflict. Addressing these threats requires urgent action by the G8.

Action by all governments, civil society, private sector, religious communities and—in the final analysis—every member of the human family is required to advance the common good. We urge the G8 to respond in ways designed to engage these stakeholders in building our common future.

Religious communities have roles in building peace. Before outlining these roles, we acknowledge with genuine sorrow that all religions have at times been misused in fomenting violence.i

We reject this misuse of religions and commit ourselves to engaging our communities for the common good. Collectively, our religious communities are the world’s largest social networks which reach into the furthest corners of the earth and include countless institutions dedicated to caring for people. Religions share many moral traditions that can provide basic principles essential for just and harmonious relations among persons and communities. Moreover, religious traditions—each in its own way—cultivate spiritualities of compassion and love essential for genuine reconciliation and peace. Mobilizing these great social, moral and spiritual dimensions of the world’s religions in service of the common good is essential for the well-being of the human family. We are united in the conviction that all religions obligate their followers to work for justice among all peoples, and to care for one another and our common home, the earth. We commit to doing so.

OUR COMMITMENT

As religious leaders, we are committed to the path of multi-religious cooperation for peace. Religious traditions—each in its own way—summons their followers to the path of multi-religious cooperation for the common good. This path:

 Leads to senior religious leaders from all faith traditions and billions of believers working together for a positive and holistic state of peace;

consensus on values that can serve as the basis of just and creative policies.

SHARED SECURITY

An overarching notion that we believe can help express the comprehensive character of our moral and religious concerns is “Shared Security.” Shared Security builds on the concept of Human Security by focusing on the fundamental inter-relatedness of all persons and the environment.

Shared Security includes a comprehensive respect for the interconnectedness and dignity of all life. It is based upon our mutual interdependence and the most universal and fundamental fact that all humans live in one world. It recognizes that the well-being of one is related to the well-being of others and ultimately to the earth that we all share. It calls us to recognize that past, present and future are linked. Together, we must acknowledge past failings, face present challenges and accept our responsibilities to future generations.

Shared Security is concerned with the full continuum of human relations—from relationships among individuals to the ways that peoples are organized in nations or international organizations. It respects state sovereignty, but also supports democratic and transparent cooperation among states and peoples.

It follows that the security of one actor of international relations must not be detrimental to others. International actors who are responsible for global decision-making must act transparently and be open to the contributions of all stakeholders, including religious communities which represent a major part of civil society. A similar concern for a just world order, respecting different national and religious traditions, was made at the Moscow World Summit of Religious Leaders (2006).

As religious leaders, we recognize that there is a foundational moral imperative for advancing Shared Security: We are all responsible for one another’s well-being.

CALLS TO ACTION

We call upon the G8 to include in their discussions and plans of action the following areas of concern:

1.The Destruction of the Environment and Climate Change

Japan, the host of this year’s G8 Summit, possesses a spiritual term, mottainai, meaning “do not waste, use everything in a fashion commensurate with its true value.” This concept recognizes the mysterious “giftedness” of all existence, and urges that natural resources must be used appropriately, while simultaneously encouraging responsible and sustainable consumption. The concept also provides a base for recognizing that it is unethical to burden future generations with excessive pollution or other gross environmental imbalances. Development must be environmentally sustainable.

We must also draw attention to the link between the health of the environment and war. In addition to killing people, disrupting the lives of entire societies and thwarting development, war destroys the ecosystem. Massive defense expenditures, a global total of US$ 1.34 Trillion in 2007 according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, both directly assaults the ecosystem and squanders monies that urgently need to be directed to sustainable development. It is a grave contradiction to advocate for a reduction of global warming gas emissions while simultaneously maintaining or even expanding military expenditures.

We urge the G8 Summit to:

 Commit to a reduction of total national defense and military expenditures and utilize the saved funds to establish an Earth Fund dedicated to environmental protection.

 Establish a new binding framework to follow up the Kyoto Protocols that limits global average temperature rise to avert catastrophic climate change.

The massive scale of extreme poverty at a time of unprecedented wealth is a moral scandal. Poverty is exacerbated by structural injustices in the global economy which must be addressed. At the midpoint of the Millennium Development Campaign, religious leaders gathered at the Cologne World Summit of Religious Leaders (2007). They recognized an urgent need to not only fulfill the pledges, but in some instances, to exceed the commitments made. Meeting these challenges is even more urgent, not least due to the growing food crisis. Here again, we call for the funds achieved from the reduction of defense budgets to be allocated in support of sustainable development and poverty reduction.

We request the G8 Summit to:

 Take leadership to ensure the achievement of the MDGs, including delivery on the

Gleneagles aid quantity and quality promises, particularly reaching the goal 0.7% of Gross National Income for Official Development Assistant.

 Meet its pledges of increased resources to scale up the response to HIV and AIDS, Malaria, and other infectious diseases, and to ensure universal access to HIV and AIDS prevention, treatment and care services by 2010.

 Make the legal empowerment of the poor a key objective in its development assistance strategies.

 Fulfill its commitment to ensuring a development friendly outcome of the Doha Round of trade negotiations.

3.Nuclear Disarmament

Mindful that the 2008 G8 Summit is taking place in Japan, the only country that has suffered the horror of a nuclear attack, we religious leaders stand in solidarity with our Japanese hosts to call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. We believe that the attempt to militarily dominate the sea, space, neutral territories or states creates obstacles on the way to nuclear and conventional disarmament. We also believe that conventional disarmament and efforts to ban military technologies and initiatives that could provoke a new arms race should go hand in hand with efforts to advance nuclear disarmament.

We request the G8 Summit to:

 Pursue rigorous implementation of nuclear reduction and nonproliferation policies leading to the goal of total nuclear disarmament. As stipulated in article 6 of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states must act on their commitments to work toward eliminating existing nuclear weapons as rapidly as possible. States with nuclear weapons that have not acknowledged them must acknowledge their possession, make similar commitments to their elimination and enter into the NPT.

 Push for prompt ratifications and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and commit to take no action leading toward the reintroduction of any form of nuclear weapons testing.

 Continue to demonstrate positive leadership for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 and other global initiatives to control the transfer of nuclear materials and stop further proliferation.

4.Terrorism and Violent Conflict

Terrorism—the intentional killing of innocent people as a way of achieving a political objective—is never morally justified whether it is perpetrated by individuals, groups or states. Moreover, military responses to terrorism injure innocent persons, provide additional motivation for terrorist groups and endanger basic freedoms in the societies attempting to protect themselves from terrorism.

Violent military conflict—the attempt to settle serious disputes by military force—typically results in the loss of innocent lives, disruption of society, thwarting of development and destruction of the environment.

Every effort must be made to utilize non-violent means to thwart terrorism and resolve disputes to advance peace.

We call upon the G8 to:

 Provide global leadership designed to combat the victimization of groups based on culture or creed.

 Work to end occupation and establish just, honorable and comprehensive peace in all

countries or territories which are occupied.

 Re-affirm and strengthen its commitment to standards of international law in its efforts to counteract terrorism and promote international security.

 Acknowledge and support the importance of multi-religious partnerships to help address the problems of terrorism and violent conflict.

 Work to limit the production and export of arms into areas of violent conflict.

 Promote a culture of peace by advancing non-violent conflict resolution and peace

education.

CONCLUSION

The G8 has the responsibility to use boldness and wisdom to advance the common good in partnership with the religious communities and all other stakeholders.

We—leaders of diverse religious communities—re-commit ourselves to working together and with other partners of good will to address the threats that confront us all. While we labor to meet the challenges of our day, we are deeply mindful of religious traditions which have taught—each in its own way—compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation, and that these are essential for genuine peace.

We respectfully urge the G8 to recognize, facilitate and effectively support the importance of multireligious cooperation, as it takes needed steps to advance the common good.